I would like to take this opportunity to articulate my concerns regarding your interpretation of the concept of free will. To start, if we understand free will as the ability to make choices between spiritual good and evil while maintaining a sense of equilibrium, it appears that the essence of true will is, in fact, compromised. The act of making a choice inherently necessitates a preference for one option over another. You claim that the act of choosing activates the will, but this introduces a logical inconsistency; if the will is entirely controlled, it cannot truly be the source of choice. Therefore, from your theological standpoint, it seems that there is no causal connection to be found. The idea that there is a lack of causality is akin to proposing a state of nonexistence. You maintain that individuals generate their desires independently, which suggests the exercise of a will that has already been predetermined. However, this prompts the inquiry: how can choice guide the will? If the will is defined solely by freedom, your interpretation of freedom appears to lack genuine agency. The act of choosing, which is inherently self-determined, indicates the presence of a preceding will that influences subsequent choices. Consequently, if we revisit the initial choice, we must consider: what factors influenced this foundational decision? The conclusions we can draw imply that within a framework of freedom shaped by tone, there are neither essential reasons nor authentic desires. This observation brings us back to the conceivable reality of existence itself. Ultimately, a view of freedom that is influenced by tone suggests a perspective that lacks a viable understanding of potential reality. Historically, the notion of non-existence interacts with existence, evolving into conscious existence through decisions that lack clear rationale. Without reasoning underpinning these decisions, one cannot substantiate a belief in God. Furthermore, if God is perceived as non-existent, then your specific viewpoint offers little support for the notion that your potential for conscious existence is confined to future encounters with a God who embodies a conscious being, assuming that God does exist. Would it not be fair to assert that your approach to faith reflects a logically flawed comprehension of chance, permitting choices that lack rational basis and relegating anything beyond logic to subjective interpretation within the uncertain terrain of faith? I contend that you do recognize grace as the foundation of faith; however, if you consider the will to be fundamentally perfect and incorruptible, your reasoning aligns closely with a form of pragmatic logic. From this vantage point, any outcomes of rational thought can be perceived merely as chance, indicating that you subscribe to a deterministic outlook on life.